Racial and Religious Hatred Bill

My Lords, I thank the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor for his exposition of the Bill, which, he agrees, is both important and controversial. I shall endeavour to indicate at least some areas where it may be considered controversial. However, before I do so, I should like to say how much we are looking forward to the maiden speeches of the noble Baroness, Lady Corston, an expert in this area, and the noble Lord, Lord Foulkes of Cumnock. I have had the privilege of knowing the noble Lord for a long time, I think first as the rector’s assessor to the university court of the University of Edinburgh. He was even younger then than he is today; and, as the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor said, he has brought the Heart of Midlothian to extraordinary heights of success as a result of his chairmanship of that club. This is an important Bill. I wish to start by saying a word or two about questions of definition. The noble Lord, Lord Wedderburn of Charlton, asked the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor whether he was proposing any definitions. He is extremely economical on that front: no definitions are to be given. The noble and learned Lord knows at least as well as I do—probably better—that the provisions with regard to definition of words and phrases depend on the statutory context in which they appear. Therefore, to use the Campbell and Cosans v United Kingdom definition in the context of this Bill is, to my mind, at the very least highly questionable. It was part of my responsibility to act for the Government of the United Kingdom in the Campbell and Cosanscase. It was a question of whether their views on violence to children were properly religious or philosophical convictions—that was in the context of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms. However, the Bill is going forward with proposals on religious hatred without any definition or any attempt to refer, on a matter of definition, to any other statute—which it would be perfectly open to do. If the noble and learned Lord felt that the definition, for example, in any of the other legislation to which he referred were suitable for this, it would be easy so to provide. My fear is that, without such a definition, the Bill is open to serious misapplication to conduct which I think that we would all regard as proper conduct. The Prime Minister said quite plainly, following the events of 7 July, that the people who committed those atrocities did so in the light of receiving a religious teaching that is a perversion of Islam—not Islam; a perversion of Islam. So far as I can see, nothing in the Bill would prevent a perversion of Islam being just as much a religion as Islam itself. The noble Lord, Lord Foulkes of Cumnock, shakes his head. He will give a—what should I say?—non-controversial speech later. But I say this in all seriousness: it is difficult to say that a perversion of Islam is not a religion. If it is, there is the question of religious hatred in relation to the perpetrators. The Prime Minister said that such people who teach and glorify terror and who preach that it is lawful and praiseworthy to kill innocent people on the streets of London are ““vicious and appalling””. That is not exactly a description calculated to endear them to you; quite the opposite. Surely, that is an obvious stirring up of appropriate disapprobation of those people. It is apparent that the Government are now thinking of proposing to close certain religious establishments on the basis that that perversion of Islam is being presented to the people who go there. Your Lordships may have seen the moving description given by the widow of one of the London bombers of the way in which her husband’s mind had been poisoned by his attendance at a certain mosque. That appears a clear example of a religious belief that has brought about conduct in the people who preach it and give effect to it that is properly worthy of insult and hatred. That is an important aspect of the Bill. The example given on the ““Today”” radio programme this morning is certainly covered by exactly the same proposal. A BNP regional officer put up a poster stating, ““Stop Islam””, along with various other things. We seem to be trying to gild the lily in a way that is quite unnecessary, when existing law makes adequate and proper provision for all the circumstances that one can see.